755 South Plum Street, Marysville, OH 43040 · Union County · (937) 644-8836
98 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1982
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 365577 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 13, 2025, inspectors cited 21 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since May 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.03 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
42.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
CMS links it to Garden Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 6 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a multi-use glucometer was cleaned with the appropriate cleansing wipes during use for multiple residents. This affected two (Residents #21 and #16) of two residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, observation, review of facility policy and review of manufacture guidelines, the facility failed to ensure an assessment or evaluation for a reasonable accommodation of need regarding a bed handrail was completed. This affected one resident (#43) out of three residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 63. Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 02/24/25. Diagnoses included total retinal detachment of left eye, asthma, chronic ischemic heart disease, and acute on chronic systolic heart failure. Review of the plan of care dated 02/25/25 revealed Resident #43 required a two person assist for transfers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely assess a resident after a fall and timely document the fall in the residents medical record. This affected one (Resident #14) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 63. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 08/23/24. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease, hypothyroidism, constipation, and dementia. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was at risk for falls. Review of the plan of care dated 08/26/24 revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to increased need for assistance with bed mobility and transfers, Huntington's disease, overactive bladder, and history of falls. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pain was adequately addressed and managed for a resident with complaints of pain. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #159 experienced severe breakthrough pain from a fractured tibia and fibula and was not assessed for pain or offered pain relieving interventions, including medications, to treat the resident's pain. The resident was observed multiple times displaying outward expressions of pain including moaning, tearfulness, and fist-clinching, during general observations and during direct care. This affected one (#159) of two residents reviewed for pain. The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide palatable meals to the residents. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents living in the facility whom all ate meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices in handling soiled linens, sanitizing glucometers, and providing care of a gastrostomy tube. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 56 residents residing in the facility. The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of infection control logs, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an adequate and complete antibiotic stewardship program was implemented to monitor for possible infections within the facility and determine appropriateness of antibiotic use. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a certified nurse aide (CNA) completed no less than twelve (12) hours of required in-servicing education each year. This had the potential to affect all 56 residents in the facility. The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident concerns were addressed timely and appropriately during resident council meetings. This affected six Residents (#5, #15, #17, #27, #35 and #44) that regularly attend resident council meetings. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their personal care needs account on an ongoing basis. This had the potential to affect all 24 (#01, #04, #05, #06, #07, #08, #10, #13, #14, #16, #19, #21, #22, #23, #25, #26, #28, #35, #36, #38 , #39, #42, #44, and #162) residents who have authorized the facility to [NAME] their personal financial accounts. The census was 56. Findings Include: An interview on 05/08/25 at 9:15 A.M. with the Business Office Manager #20 (BOM) confirmed the banking hours for residents to receive funds from their personal care needs account are 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. She denied knowing if residents could get money out of their accounts on weekends or after 3:00 P.M. during the weekdays. An interview on 05/08/25 at 10:00 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide a homelike dining environment in the main dining room, this affected eight residents that were identified as eating lunch in the dining room (Resident #5, #6, #7, #21, #28, #35, #36, and #41). The facility also failed to ensure clean linens were provided to one (Resident #309) of nine (Resident #4, #10, #14, #18, #19, #36, #50, and #51) residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 56 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide dignity during dining when staff was standing over a resident while assisting with feeding. This affected one resident (Resident #16) out of six residents (#7, #12, #14, #15, #16, #36) reviewed for dignity. The census was 56 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to protect a resident (Resident #14) after an allegation of verbal abuse by a staff member and continued to let the staff member work at the facility. This affected one resident, Resident #14, out of three residents (#15, and #16) reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews and facility policy and procedures review, the facility failed to ensure the physician and or prescribing practitioner documented a rationale in the resident's medical record for the use of a psychotropic drug for 180 days. This had the potential to affect one (Resident #4) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The census was 56.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 01/16/23. Diagnoses included carcinoma in situ of esophagus, severe protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, depression, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease stage III, vascular dementia, alcohol abuse, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, metabolic encephalopathy, and acquired AKA (above the knee amputation). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 is cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 13 and required one person assist with activities of daily living and had no history of behaviors. Review of facility self reported incidents (SRI)s revealed no submission related to verbal abuse allegation involving Resident #14. Telephone interview on 05/06/25 at 9:43 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 01/16/23. Diagnoses included carcinoma in situ of esophagus, severe protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, depression, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease stage III, vascular dementia, alcohol abuse, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, metabolic encephalopathy, and acquired AKA (above the knee amputation). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 is cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 13 and required one person assist with activities of daily living and had no history of behaviors. Interview with Regional Operations Director #154 on 05/06/25 at 09:29 A.M. revealed no reports of abuse in the last month. [...]
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 01/16/23. Diagnoses included carcinoma in situ of esophagus, severe protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, depression, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease stage III, vascular dementia, alcohol abuse, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, metabolic encephalopathy, and acquired AKA (above the knee amputation). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 13 and required one person assist with activities of daily living and had no history of behaviors. Telephone interview on 05/06/25 at 09:43 A.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #51 revealed she witnessed very concerning behavior from CNA #22 a little less than one month ago. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate and pertinent information was communicated to the receiving health care institution during a resident transfer. This had the potential to affect one (#57) of five residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 56. Finding Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 01/30/24. Diagnoses included arthritis due to other bacteria of the right knee, chronic pain, acute kidney failure, unspecified low back pain, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, multiple myeloma, hypertension, pneumonia, ileus, unspecified muscle weakness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to complete and provide a bed hold notice and reason for transfer to residents and resident representative and failed to notify the long-term care ombudsman of a resident transfer as required. This affected three (#57, #56, and #12) of five residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents were accurately completed for two (#23 and #27) of five residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 56.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 03/21/23. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, diabetes, cognitive communication deficit, encephalopathy and insomnia. Review of Resident #23's plan of care dated 03/22/23 revealed the nutritional care plan had no intervention changes or updates in over two years in which time resident had significant weight loss of over 20 pounds, or 12.22 percent (%) weight loss, in six months. The interventions in the current care plan included monitoring for weight loss and to make diet recommendations as needed. Review Resident #23's progress notes revealed no notes regarding nutrition from 03/27/24 to 03/05/25. Review of a note dated 03/05/25 revealed the resident had excessive weight loss and a second weight was requested to confirm weight loss. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician orders for use of and documented use of specialized devices to aid in turning and repositioning as a pressure ulcer prevention intervention. This had the potential to affect one (#30) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 56. Finding Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 02/22/25. Diagnoses included hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, malignant neoplasm of bilateral ovaries, hypothyroidism, Crohn's disease, morbid obesity, difficulty walking, need for assistance with personal care, major depressive disorder, pressure ulcer of the right buttocks, chronic kidney disease, and cognitive communication deficit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with adequate peri-care. This affected one (#161) of one residents reviewed for peri-care. The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide complete information requested. This affected one (#159) of one residents reviewed for medical record documentation. The census was 56.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interview, resident interview, review of the facility handbook, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident personal and medical information was kept confidential. This affected four (Residents #18, #23, #36 and #37) of five records reviewed for privacy and confidentiality. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff, hospice staff and family interviews, the facility failed to administer a residents medications per physician orders. This affected one (#79) of three residents reviewed for medication administration who received hospice services. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, review of manufacturer's directions, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prime an insulin pen prior to administration per manufacturer recommendation. This affected one (Resident #27) of four residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure meals were served using the correct serving size, and failed to ensure mechanical soft and pureed meals were prepared according to a recipe. This had the potential to affect all 69 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents (Resident #16 and #276) who received nothing by mouth and did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to prepare food in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 69 residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents (Resident #16 and #276) who received nothing by mouth and did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility assessment and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment addressed the use of contract nursing staff to provide services. This had the potential to affect all 71 residents. The census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of glucometer manufacture instructions, the facility failed to ensure the glucometer (machine used to test blood sugar level) was properly disinfected between residents. This affected four residents (Resident #45, #276, #277, and #281) out of 17 residents who resided on the 100 hall. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the stand up scale was properly maintained. This had the potential to affect all 24 residents (Resident #3, #4, #8, #9, #10, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #28, #29, #30, #32, #36, #40, #41, #46, #47, #53, #58, #60, #61, and #77) who could utilize the stand up scale and resided on the 300/400 hallway. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate code status in the paper medical record and electronic medical record. This affected one (Resident #5) out of two residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete an updated Preadmission Screening and Resident Review for a resident with a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder. This affected one (Resident #49) out of one resident reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, policy review, and review of a job description, the facility failed to implement an effective and timely discharge planning process. This affected one (Resident #43) of two residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance with eating. This affected one (Resident #36) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders prior to completing wound treatments. This affected one (Resident #427) out of two residents reviewed for skin concerns. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received timely treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision. The affected one (Resident #18) out of one resident reviewed for vision services. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, resident interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to complete weekly skin assessments, monitor wound progress, and timely implement interventions for pressure ulcers. This affected one (Resident #43) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure nutritional supplements were provided as ordered. This affected one (Resident #36) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of manufacture instructions, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure insulin was administered according to manufactures instructions. This affected one (Resident #281) of four residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of pharmacy medication reviews, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was aware and responded to pharmacy medication reviews/recommendations in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #28) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory testing as ordered. This affected one (Resident #28) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident call lights were in working order. This affected one (Resident #28) out of 24 reviewed for functioning call lights. The facility census was 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical and facility record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide notification of resident's transfers to the hospital to the resident and/or representative and to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This affected three (#24, #51 and #57) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or representative of the facility's bed hold policy. This affected one (#57) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan addressed the use of an anticoagulant for Resident #305. This affected one (#305) of 16 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident's behavior of picking at her skin and facial lesions was addressed on the resident's plan of care. This affected one (#38) of 16 care plans reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident's facial lesions were documented in the medical record, treated and monitored for improvement and failed to have hospice progress notes available for review for another resident. This affected one (#38) of two resident's reviewed for non-pressure skin issues and one (#8) of two residents reviewed for hospice services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were not administered for extended periods of time without attempts for gradual dose reductions for one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, policy review and record review, the facility failed to ensure mail was delivered to residents on Saturday. This had the potential to affect all 57 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility assessment and staff interview, the facility failed to conduct and implement an annual facility assessment in a timely manner. This has the potential to affect all 57 residents residing in the facility.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 13, 2025, 3 on June 6, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.03 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.65 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.88 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.1% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.59 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.19 on weekdays and 2.65 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.25 in April to June 2025 to 3.03 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.03 | 0.51 | 3.19 | 2.65 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.07 | 0.47 | 3.22 | 2.71 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.02 | 0.54 | 3.16 | 2.67 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 68 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.25 | 0.44 | 3.43 | 2.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 64 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.7 | 24.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.9 | 12.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Prestige Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 26 eligible stays.
9.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 35 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 18 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio55.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Ohio0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 21 residents counted.
4.9% this home
Median of homes: Ohio1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 21 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Ohio100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 1 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: MARYSVILLE GARDENS REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE LLC. CMS links this home to Garden Healthcare Group, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chickiestrong Marysville Gardens LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 80% | 12/30/2016 |
| Gamzeh, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 12/30/2016 |
| Glatzer, Akiva | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 12/30/2016 |
| Scalf-Leber, Stephanie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Gamzeh, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Leshkowitz, Eli | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2016 | |
| Garden Healthcare Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/30/2016 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.